Anonymous6: funny how the white boiz always whines when its a blonde/white girl? the little white boiz jealous of the big black cock stealing their white girls! ┐(‘～`；)┌
HardSpanker: They are simply secretly afraid that they'll taste the black mamba and find it delicious themselves. It's ok to be gay anonymous, don't be scared homie.
Anonymous11: @Anonymous: "delicious tears" "haters gonna hate" same old shit, try to be more original next time.
Also it's funny how sjw here think that it's so impossible for people to dislike cuckoldry that they jump to the conclusion that all the negative comments are made by the same single person, talk about being delusional.
Anonymous12: @madofag: No, she's just another victim of rape, nothing consensual at all.
If there's anyone who likes it black and arabic in Sweden, that is Barbara Lerner Spectre.
Anonymous13: Tears from raging morons who conflate "cuckolding" with "interracial", make every anims like this hilariously awesome. Keep crying you fucking idiots, you've been effective in stopping people from doing anims/gifs/pics from happening THUS far. Oh wait...
Anonymous14: @Anonymous: If the people who liked interracial and cuckolding would stop conflating them to begin with the retards wouldn't be doing it either.
The people using the cuck insult didn't just start hating interracial porn out of nowhere, they just started using the word cuck because they saw people into it falling on that trend enough that they made a stereotype out of it.
I mean, the people hating it certainly aren't the only retards in this equation. Just look at Anon6, HardSpanker and Violater. These kinds of people invite the herd of retards in by acting like dipshits themselves and then act blameless when we're suddenly swimming it the shit.
Both sides of this fucking argument are retarded and every single time someone brings it up that truth is proved again and again.
Anonymous15: @Anonymous: Strawman a bit harder why don't you? Anon6 didn't say anything about cuckolding. Neither did HardSpanker, OR Violater. So you trying to lump them in, to make some faulty "both sides do it" argument in regard to the idiots who misuse the label of "cuck"...show that you're AT BEST completely fucking stupid. Learn to logic. And get a new transparent bullshit-filled tactic.
"Sorry", there's no zero-sum game, despite the pathetic meme of the (often Faux Concern Filled) "Both Sides Do It!" crowd.
Anonymous17: @Anonymous: Well for starters I never made the argument that those three used the term or referred to cuckolding. I mentioned them in context of being on the same league as the assholes who complain nonstop because their retarded antics invite more bullshit and arguing. If they weren't here doing it I assure you these comment sections would be less vitriolic. People like them feed off the trolls as much as the trolls feed of their own hate and comments directed at them. It's cyclic and when you have people acting like idiots at the idiots it turns everything to shit. If you see a bunch of racist retards acting out the proper reaction should be to ignore, block or make them look stupid, not join them in the mud and give them more a reason to shit the place up.
Secondly; though I didn't originally make the argument and now that you've pointed it out maybe you should reread Anon6's comment.
"...the little white boiz jealous of the big black cock stealing their white girls!"
Now, did he mean that in a demographic sense or on a personal level? It reads kind of ambiguous between the two doesn't it? Whether or not what he said constitutes cuckolding depends on which sense he meant it.
If he meant it on a personal level then it's text book cuckolding. If he meant it on a demographic level then it'd be nonsense since white men don't own white women and black men ending up with the latter doesn't constitute cuckolding. So why would he word it like that?
It's almost as if he's conflating interracial (ex: black man with white woman) with "stealing someone's white girl" (cuckolding). Gee, it's like his rebuttal -- though almost certainly supposed to be a joke -- to the stupid idiots here proves my exact point that the haters are not the only ones who mix the two up.
And even if he were shitposting in an attempt to shine a mirror at the troglodytes and turn their bitching on themselves all he did was gave them another target that represents interracial=cuckolding to attack thereby making sure we get to deal with more cuck shitposting.
These people thrive off you screaming at them, forgive me for hoping the side they're not on would recognize that instead of feeding into the retarded cycle for immediate gratification.
And for the record, maybe you should find a new style of argument that doesn't rely on a bunch of insults disguised as an argument. (And yes, you can leave those strawmen and TL;DR mats at home too).
Anonymous18: @Anonymous: So you're still trying this "Zero-Sum Game" bullshit, huh? You have to be a special brand of naive idiot to think that the people responding to the racist shitposters.....who start it 99.9% of the time, and often make multiple uncontested comments on individual pics (that outnumber the people against the racists in general)....are actually equal. The racist idiots would (and DO on both R34 sites) still make racist comments. So to act like the people against them are that big of a driving force is to be naive, or at worst disingenuous.
I read Anon6's comment. And common sense would dictate that he's talking about it on the demographic level because white guys (men in all groups really) take "ownership" of their group's women. As backwards as that may be. Since there's really no epidemic of white girls cheating on their white boyfriends with black dudes, and then dumping their white boyfriends for said black dudes.
It's the latter because "They're taking all our (white) women!" is the most common phrase from a group of men (when it comes to mixed relationships) in the US. Although in the modern era, to be fair. Even if the numbers of these pairings is incredibly low. To the degree that you have more insulting names for this specific pairing than any other race/gender combination.
And I'm not really insulting you by calling "water wet". Don't like it? Tough shit. Deal with on your own fucking time, while you work on not fitting right in with the label.
Anonymous20: The people trying to hide themselves from any kind of criticism behind the word "strawman" are only proving their stupidity, "meme" and "haters gonna hate" are also used by people too stupid to process some thoughts on their own, often proving that who is criticizing or insulting them is right, nothing more.
Anonymous21: @Anonymous: Any more "feel good and made up rules" you wanna hide behind? To attempt to distract people from realizing that you have no ACTUAL rebuttal.
Anonymous23: @Anonymous: we all know what your "ACTUAL" rebuttal is:
@Anonymous: True, how is that difficult to understand? It's true we are talking to tumblr's social justice "warriors", but still...
Anonymous24: @Revan-: No one here is complaining, we are just stating how people like you are defending their own ignorance.
using "meme" over and over again is intellectually lazy, you are not proving anything and you are making a fool out of yourself.
Ironically unable to think on your own you are becoming a meme yourself.
Anonymous25: @Revan-: At this point i can't believe you are older than 12, an adult can't be that stupid, so what are you doing on a porn site kid!?
do you think you are 'trolling'?
do you think people are 'mad'?
then sorry to burst your bubble but no one here gives a fuck about you and your idiocy, don't you realize you are becoming the joke of this site?
why don't you hang yourself and end your miserable existence? I can assure you will NOT be missed by anyone.
Anonymous26: @Anonymous: So still more of the same baseless and made up nonsense? Maybe same-fag again and use another animated meme gif. The last one didn't do good enough of a job to make an argument for you, after your own PERSONAL and "well-wishing disqualifier" (that like an idiot, you touted as an established rule) failed on all fronts.
Anonymous27: @Anonymous: you are so delusional, same-fag? do you really think all the responses against you are from the same person, is this what you meant with that stupid term?
if so you are delusional indeed, what you can't understand is that nobody here gives a shit about your PC bullshit, He's not the only one against your sjw crap as you like to believe, i read the previous posts and your stance like any other sjw scum is: it's ok if against some, but it's not okay if against some other ones, hence your "doesn't matter if the other side (your side) does it" classic SJW hypocrisy.
go back to tumblr, you'll find a lot of fellow SJW to talk with.
Anonymous28: @Anonymous: Firstly, I have no idea where you're getting a zero sum out of anything here. I've never made an allusion to one or argued there is one. I've said responding to trolls by being a troll doesn't do anything but incite more of them to act out and defending the action with "but they started it!" is childish logic. You're no less of a shit-smeared fool because someone else did it first or does it more.
And they are a driving force. Don't kid yourself otherwise. It's blatantly obvious given comments sections here only get 30+ comments when idiots on both sides start acting like trolls. They don't keep coming back for the content at the top of the page, they come back for the comments.
This aversion to ridiculing the actions of both sides just reeks of partisan favoritism. You're not looking at this fight from the outside, you're very much a part of it and have deemed the one you sympathize with above scrutiny because you think the other side is worse. I'm not going to excuse the stupidity of someone meowing at their fingers because there's a fool barking at the moon twenty feet away. Doing so only validates one form of stupidity over the other.
You're not really proving Anon6's comment wasn't exactly what I said it was either. I mentioned that even if he meant it as a rebuttal to the irrational "our women," idea that every demographic has, then he's still playing into the idea of interracial relationships being cuckolding for the sake of an insult. That's been my point all along, that people who hate black men with white women relationships have always done so, they just weren't using the term cuck until they could see that as a legitimate target by people ridiculing them with a "threat of cuckolding" (like Anon6) or because a lot of fans of the concept erroneously conflate it with plain interracial to begin with.
If someone ridiculing them can fall into the same trap, then by definition it's not just the interracial detractors who do the mixing up.
Nice job at the end there too not even bothering to argue the contention of petty insults. But hey, at least you get to validate your caustic approach and lazy thinking with a nice superiority complex. Go ahead, let's here some more that aren't completely irrelevant and only serve to fill in the lack of a precise point.
@Anonymous: That's not entirely true. There are a lot of strawmen played straight that get torched around here, but you're right in pointing out that there's quite a lot of hiding behind presumptions to validate forcing a black and white narrative of side A versus side B where there can be no nuance or criticism which just ends up easily written off as being partisan despite where it comes from.
@Anonymous: There are a lot of people in this argument who don't fall within that stereotype and pegging them to it just kind of mimics the lazy thinking that anyone criticizing here must be a racist.
This kind of argument of extremes doesn't really help honestly. There are plenty of people here who aren't "SJWs," or vacationing "/pol/tards."
Anonymous29: @Anonymous: LOL! Buzzwords ahoy! Why don't you say "PC", "SJW", and "Tumblr", like another Dillan Roof Level angsty social retard, a few more times. You might distract people from the fact that you have no actual argument. Just that you're simply shouting "Nooooo!" like a retard, but in a roundabout fashion. Just because someone isn't a complete and utter dickhead, that doesn't mean they're an "SJW". You were clearly too stupid to pick up on that.
@Anonymous: Except that Anon6 never connected interracial relationships with "cuckolding". Because that's now how the definition of the word works. And in reality is just YOU projecting. By you conflating the two on YOUR OWN and baselessly accusing Anon6 of supporting cuckolding. Where your built your argument on a false point, with your continued misuse of the word. (Which was my point all along, with my initial mention of the actions of idiots.) And then trying to justify said projecting misnomer because of "what some phantom interracial fans said". You're using your own lazy thinking and the same lazy thinking of phantom people to justify your baseless and accusatory stance.
Which is complete and utter laughable nonsense. No matter how many times you go repeat yourself.
And "treating both sides as equal", when it comes to two opposing sides of "wrong", is the slow-poke logic that's popular with dumb and naive college-aged Libertarian idiots. Who approach practically every discussion like there is no greater wrong on either side, and that everything must be approached in an equal amount of condemnation. Lol, "puh-lease". Step out in the real friggin' world already, where you'll see that such thinking is a massive waste of time 9 times out of 10 and does more harm than good.
Anonymous31: @Anonymous: I'm not projecting anon. I know what cuckolding means and I know what interracial is. I wouldn't have a problem with people conflating them if I didn't and the fact is Anon6 did exactly that. It doesn't matter if he did it for the sake of an insult.
"...the little white boiz jealous of the big black cock stealing their white girls!"
You said it yourself, he meant it on a demographic level mirroring the trend of males within a population seeing "ownership," over their female counterparts. That irrational thought pattern is where a lot of the "cuck," insult comes from and Anon6 played right into it.
White and Black men do not own White and Black women respectively so there would be no reason for him to word the insult like that unless he thought otherwise or was buying into the notion of those he's ridiculing to turn an insult.
Either way, he's conflated a black man being with a white woman as cuckolding aka "stealing," a woman away.
Don't try to play the redirect and projecting game here because you can't understand this.
All I'm seeing here are excuses for what you perceive to be the lesser evil and why you think it's bad someone might have something negative to say about you and yours while simultaneously attacking your opposition. In the real world what you're positing ends up being nothing more than a validation to terminate arguments of nuance for the sake of propping up the side who can proclaim their moral superiority the loudest. That kind of thinking is exactly how we end up with terrible leaders representing us while their sycophants chant, "At least they're not..." to lull people into thinking it might be fine to have one brand of terrible over another.
I never said the sides were equal either. I happen to hold those who aren't racist asshats to a higher standard, which is exactly why I'm criticizing those who would oppose them devolving to their mud-ridden level and in effect perpetuating the whole lousy affair while using their own double-standards to excuse their own flavor of shitslinging.
No... I think the naive one here is you. Elevating one side beyond reproach because the other is worse is definitive "good vs bad," naivete. It's not pragmatic and it's not realistic, it's the pathetic bending of a blunt and ugly truth -- that both sides are worth condemning to various degrees -- to better fit a hopeful and unrealistic dream of one being unequivocally right despite it acting terribly, just not as terribly as the other.
Anonymous32: @Anonymous: you are just spouting nonsense and personal attacks trying desperately to sound smarter than you really are, and you have the nerve to talk about not having an actual point? don't make me laugh!
All of that trying to hide your butthurt using the classic "projecting" card like brainless morons such as yourself play because unable to develop an original thought.
the real world? you are demonstrating that you don't know shit about it, you are just another indoctrinated sheep who thinks the "real world" is the propaganda he sees on TV and social media, repeating it like a parrot thinking to be smart kid.
get over yourself, you are just making a fool out of yourself kid and while you are at it, put some ice on your ass you retarded faggot.
Anonymous36: @Anonymous: Different anon, but I have to ask. People over the mental age of 12 still use "gay" as a pejorative? And saying "nobody likes you" is tantamount to saying "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"
You somehow managed to sound even dumber than the person you're criticizing. Good job.
Anonymous38: @Anonymous: Yeah, you're clearly a VERY stupid grandstanding fuck. Because applying it to the demographic level has nothing to do with the definition of cuckolding. You continue to mix up the actual definition of the word, with your own personal one that no one else uses. Because they're not married or in an "actual" relationship with them, men in general "having ownership over their women", is a one sided-endeavor. They're not "partners/spouses" in the sense that matters, in order to fit the definition OF cuckolding. I didn't think you were THIS obtuse, but "damn". But I guess grandstanding is all you can do. Even when you're dead wrong on the basic definition of the word that is a main portion of your argument. LOL!
Or am I wrong?
Go link for us multiple sites that have the definition of cuckolding, and then show us how Anon6 is applying that definition on the demographic level. Go. Show us that you're NOT some overly wordy idiot, who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Anonymous39: @Anonymous: LOL! First it was "The Classic Strawman Card" to "prove" that people don't know what they're talking about, and then it was the "Classic Projecting Card" to show the same thing.
How many super secret special rules, that only you know about, are there? Link us the rule book you're reading, moron. Otherwise you're just making shit up like a typical one does.
Anonymous41: @Anonymous: I know applying the definition of cuckolding to a demographic level has nothing to do with the term anon. In fact my point centers around that. If you'd put the ad hominems away for just a little bit you'd get that. Let me break it down for you.
Anon6's comment in full:
"funny how the white boiz always whines when its a blonde/white girl? the little white boiz jealous of the big black cock stealing their white girls! ┐(‘～`；)┌ "
Cuckolding on a technical level is simply someone's female SO (cuckquean is the opposite term for male SOs) sleeping with someone they're not in a relationship with. Broadly speaking on a fetish basis the men in these relationships know or encourage the behavior, sometimes to the point of losing their status as the woman's SO altogether.
I (Anon17) pointed out how there are two ways to interpret Anon6's comment. A personal level which can be considered synonymous with the actual definition of cuckolding above since the term only deals with things on a personal level anyway or on a demographic level with the idea of males of a certain group "owning," their female counterparts with any straying outside that dynamic constituting cuckolding.
Please note, I said the demographic level is fucking nonsense in that post. I said it again in Anon posts 28 and 31. I specifically mentioned that men of a certain demographic do not own the women within it so viewing the latter having interracial relationships as cuckolding is flat out wrong.
I brought these two distinct forms up for one reason. Anon6 is referring to "big black cock stealing their white girls!" If he meant it on a personal level then it's by definition referring to cuckolding and a conflation of interracial with it. If he meant it on a demographic level then he'd have no reason to word his insult the way he did, "stealing their white girls!" unless he did in fact view the demographic level as a legitimate application of the term and by doing so would still conflate it with interracial.
You yourself (or at least I'm assuming you; Anon18?) admitted that he meant it that way -- while also echoing my opinion that the demographic level is backwards nonsense -- because the caustic haters are using the demographic level as their criteria. So even in the event Anon6 was merely acting as a reflection of this sentiment back onto the group that espouses the idea he'd still be buying into it to use it as a reversed insult.
To bring this all back to my original point you need not look beyond my initial posts where I posited that a lot of this hate for interracial is not new, but the cuck term used as an insult is precisely because many people who are fans of both interracial porn and the cuckolding fetish wrongly conflate them and end up becoming targets of ridicule for the people who hated the interracial coupling all along and now liberally use the term as a pejorative.
In essence, my point has been that both fans and detractors conflate the two and I pointed to Anon6's comment as an example given he's either legitimately buying into the notion that cuckolding can exist at a demographic level, using that rhetoric to run against the stream of haters or referring to a personal level. In any case he's conflating the terms and obviously stands in opposition to the detractors.
You not being able to understand this is endemic of the idea that arguments of analytical complexity should be eschewed for the benefit of deciding one side, no matter how deficient in logic, be held higher by the greater faults of its opposition. The idea shuts down the ability to see both sides for what they are or accurately assess their arguments, instead replacing it with blatant partisan apologism for the lesser "villain," decided wholly on biased affiliations.
Anonymous42: @Anonymous: The OCD levels of novelist pseudo-intellectuals in this thread is off the fucking chart. No one really cares about how badly you fucks want to sound impressive on a porn site. Get over yourselves, already.
Especially the pretentious faggot above me, who keeps writing walls of text and talks as though he actually knows what a shitflinging anon thinks. There was an idiot like you in another thread on this very same discussion. You DOUBLY need to get over yourself.
Anonymous43: @Anonymous: Gosh you are truly a retard, first you criticize people for using "sjw" "PC" "Tumblr" but when they show you that you are doing the same (if not worse) thing you start crying like a bitch about people making rules.
well fucking job, you sure are showing us what a idiot you are, you are a lost cause, not that we expected better from a complete dumbfuck like yourself.
what a joke.
Anonymous45: @Anonymous: @Anonymous: @Anonymous: No one cares about your feelings here, kill yourself once and for all and free us from your idiocy, i am sure even your mother wouldn't miss you.
(Don't even bother to reply, i couldn't care less about your bitching, we already read too much of your shit)
Anonymous46: @Anonymous: Who is this faggot, and why is he acting like he's got some sort of authority, over some random anon? LOL! You self-important social retards never cease to amuse me.
Anonymous48: @Anonymous:Well if you recall I wasn't the only one talking about Anon6's intentions. The person I was arguing with was more than willing to take that on as well to try and rebut my point.
As for the length. I can't help that the people I was arguing with didn't understand my point and required me breaking it down gradually into more and more comprehensive explanations. I'm more than happy to explain myself and have no qualms if that takes what you refer to as "OCD levels of novelist pseudo-intellectualism."
There was also a person like you in that very same thread pushing the same argument you are now that was in all practicality nothing more than a glorified "TL;DR" excuse to ignore the point argued and focus on ad hominems.
I'd hazard a guess the person who truly needs to get over themselves is not quite me (except for the verbosity), but perhaps yourself given you seem to think arguing in this place is somehow beneath you. I have no illusions about what this place is, but that's not going to stop me from forming a logical and coherent point or going at length to do so if a serious discussion develops. What you're advocating is just blanket anti-intellectualism and what's worse, you're injecting your own elitism into it.
There's no reason even porn sites need be devoid of thoughtful discussion.
Anonymous49: @Anonymous: Different anon, here. And I have to say, one can't help but notice that the more and more you talk, the more and more you try to present yourself as some "wannabe puffed up scholar". So "no", the previous anon was right. You DO need to get over yourself.
You're one of those lofty perched idiots who gets mad that no one cares about a long winded rant on the science behind what's going on during a Monster Truck rally. And then cries that the crowd is promoting ignorance and doesn't like the fact that he's taken it upon himself to "educate them". So no, YOU are the only one injecting elitism.
Anonymous50: Just because someone doesn't want to read walls of someone's own "novella in the making" on a porn site, they want a "glorified TL:DR"? That's a bit arrogant.
Anonymous53: @Anonymous: I see a lot of the insecure white 4chan crowd saying that it was because of the fans of both genres who "started this whole thing". But when asked for proof, they generally tend to be a outright phantoms or some random person in the comments section of ImageFap. With the latter being oversampled and propped up to explain the stupid -chan label, like it's a legitimate reason for it. Which is nonsense.
Anonymous54: @Anonymous: Careful, they'll write another wall of text that shifts the blame on interracial and cuckold fans. Even though anyone who has a shred of integrity knows that's nonsense.
Anonymous55: @Anonymous: @Anonymous: @Anonymous: @Anonymous: @Anonymous: I doubt very much you're a different anon given you have the same syntax, same grammatical usage, same random capitalization of words to convey emphasis and same flow and style of ad hominems as the other anon you're referring to. You should practice changing your style if you're going to try this.
As I said; I have no illusions as to what this place is. I accept that I'm arguing at length on a porn site and have no intention of educating anyone. You have every right and certainly the ability to ignore any of these "novella," comments. If you do not wish to have this kind of discussion here that's perfectly fine.
However it is incredibly rich seeing an accusation of arrogance directed at someone who can admit to faults (verbosity, verbosity, verbosity) and has no qualms being precise in their arguments despite the scenery from someone such as yourself who'd rather fall back on ad hominems galore while deeming this place unfit for a proper discussion.
You're the one painting everyone here as incapable or unwilling to follow a coherent argument simply based on what this site is. Your claims of elitism seem nothing more than projecting given you're taking issue with the length and style of my arguments because of where we are. It's as if you expect every comment here to be flippant, short and full of superfluous opinion and when that expectation is not met by someone explaining themselves carefully the very notion seems to upset you.
That is your arrogance anon. You expect everyone here to be a mouth-breathing fool incapable of putting together more than a few paragraphs to rebut a point and once someone does you can't see that action as anything more than someone being pretentious or insincere. The lady doth protest too much.
My posts may be long, but I make no attempt to hide what they are. I trust the people here to read, comprehend, dispute, hate, correct, misunderstand or just ignore them as they will.
I gave you an example of the very thing I spoke of in this very thread and explained my logic. You seemingly abandoned that argument once you tired of it (or simply tired of not understanding it as your misrepresentation implies) and decided to focus on the length of my posts as a substitute point despite how utterly petty and transparently irrelevant that is.
Anonymous56: @Anonymous: Hahaha! What sort of conspiracy theory bull is this? Using proper grammar and using capitalization to imply emphasis is uncommon? Wow. I understand that you've been on the ropes by these idiot anons, but now you're just reaching again. You don't need to dress up your posts with long blocks of nonsense, and tell us that you've "won".
(Which is the action of someone who has indeed LOST.)
I don't know about anyone else, but you seem to be one of those faggots who simply likes to see his words up on a screen. Now I expect to see an entire speech from you where you call me the anon that you've been trying to debate.
Anonymous60: @Anonymous: Well you're right, using capitalized words for emphasis is not uncommon, but the posts in question seem to do it all with the same frequency. I thought of this myself, but these random capitalized words happen to coincide with other things that lead me to that conclusion.
For starters, you don't use proper grammar. All your punctuation marks end up outside your quotation marks when they're supposed to go inside them.
You also have a rather formulaic syntax and flow to your posts. That's not a bad thing as some personal standardization is good, but it does mark your person at the same time. Your ad hominem arguments are also all flavored in the same anti-prentious way, point-skirting way.
Any one of these by themselves and I'd concede that I'm wrong. All of them happening regularly in the same posts as those openly directed at me? Sorry anon, that's stretching credulity.
Just as an example; compare Anon posts 38, 42 and 49 (that claimed to be another person). They all randomly capitalize words for emphasis. They all misplace punctuation marks outside of the quotations. They all have the same verbal flow of one sentence (often laden with petty insults) to the next. They all end up focusing on an eventual ad hominem vaguely directed in the same manner. You can notice these trends in posts 50, 51, 53 and 54 as well as the earlier posts of the anon I was indeed arguing with.
I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong on this, but all these things lining up and happening regularly all in the same spots makes me think otherwise.
NigNogs: Why is this even a big deal?
People don't like interracial, some people do.
Quit trying to bait each other into arguements on a fucking porn site, you morons.
It's not racism to not enjoy interracial, and anyone who tries to claim it is is an idiot.
Anonymous61: @Anonymous: So you're just paranoid, then? As all of those are quite common mistakes. Like when people can't figure out the difference between Affect vs. Effect. Or the proper usage of a colon vs. a semicolon. Sorry anon, but the patterns that you see don't amount to much.
Anonymous62: @Anonymous: I admitted they aren't uncommon things and any one of them would be unremarkable.
They're all happening in the same posts regularly though. How many people do all those exact things in the same exact fashion repeatedly?
It's rather suspicious, especially when someone starts a post qualifying they're a different poster only to exhibit all the same quirks as the person they're trying to differentiate themselves from.
Anonymous63: @Anonymous: People start to point out that they're a different anon, on a site that doesn't track same-posters, then makes some incredibly common mistakes, and exhibits some common behaviors in speech? Tbh, there's nothing that "odd" going on.
This seems to be a bit conspiratorial/reaching, on your part. But at least you're not typing out useless "novels" anymore. (Uh-oh! I same "novel". I must be "the same" anon.)
Anonymous64: @Anonymous: They might be uncommon occurrences but you don't seem to understand that all of these things coinciding within the same posts is incredibly suspicious.
Your lack of proper use of punctuation in conjunction with quotations is not unique. Your random capitalization of words for emphasis is not unique. Your syntax and manner of ad hominem usage while certainly very distinctive is also something I'm willing to say isn't exactly unique out of the sheer impossibility of being able to determine such.
All of these things together however certainly is unique. You're trying to tell me that a different anon will immediately announce they're a different person (already something suspect in an argument like this) and then proceed to speak the same way, make the same irrelevant ad hominem arguments, the same grammatical mistakes and the same quirk of capitalized emphasis?
Any one of these and you might have a point, but all of them together in repeated instances? Please anon, stop insulting everyone's intelligence. I'm not basing this conclusion on any one of these things, but on all of them conveniently happening in the same styled posts repeatedly.
Anonymous67: @Anonymous: @Anonymous: Him not doing it in Anon63 after I pointed out he was doing it does not change the fact he was doing it beforehand or the point therein.
Nor does it change the fact the syntax is still the same as are the grammatical mistakes.
Anonymous69: @Anonymous: Yes, it was just an entirely convenient alignment of not at all suspicious coincidences.
You said yourself did you not that my "novels," are misplaced on this site. You've gone on endlessly about my "pretentious walls of words," and how people are not inclined to read them.
So why now are you contradicting yourself and that "TL;DR" argument by implying new anonymous users would chime in with posts clearly and intimately aware of the conversation at hand showing they'd read all the preceding comments while oh so conveniently using the same syntax, grammar, quirks, arguments and word usage as someone already part of said discussion?
Is that possible? Of course it is, but it's a game of probabilities Anon and your players seem rather slim. The chances it's a brand new anon who decided to read dozens and dozens of comments (something you argue against by the constant "novella," critique) to give themselves an acute familiarity of our contention while simultaneously and curiously exhibiting all of your idiosyncrasies and arguments are a lot smaller than the alternative scenario of you trying to manufacture an argumentum ad populum via samefaggotry.
Anonymous70: @Anonymous: So now you're in fullscale conspiracy mode, and back it up by saying that "anons are insulting everyone's intelligence." You're desperately reaching now with things you can't prove, and are looking at patterns that don't exist.
Tell me again how a random person is "that anon", because he doesn't do the only thing that you used to "identify" a previous anon. What makes someone not doing those things the same as an anon who changed his tactic? You've officially lost your limited mind and have shown that you're not even HALF the sleuth/are as smart as you think you are.
Can't wait yo see you hide behind the flimsy line of "Muh probability!" over figures that don't exist, again. Whatever anon said it was right, you're a paranoid nutjob.
Anonymous71: @Anonymous: It wasn't the only thing, it was one of many things and you're playing stupid by saying it was the only criteria I used since you're neatly tucking those punctuation marks into those quotes now. You did miss that one comma and your syntax is still the same though.
Anonymous73: LMAO All these butthurt nerds mad about their small dicks blame black people? Not their fault they have bigger dicks and are fucking your women
Anonymous74: @Anonymous: You can deny it all you want, but all those convenient coincidences suggest otherwise.
And if you look just below your post you'll see another instance, not unlike Anon6's comment, that reinforces my point from the beginning of our argument.
Anonymous75: @Anonymous: Careful. Some idiot might think you're advocating "cuckolding" because you referred to "some random white woman." Even if said white woman is not in a relationship with a white guy. Which your average person knows is NOT the definition of cuckolding.
Anonymous76: @Anonymous: I just scrolled through this entire thread and your comments are just flat out pitiful, you desperate faggot. Uh-oh! I disagreed with you. I must be a certain anon now. Nobody disagree with this guy. Otherwise he'll play his retarded identification version of "The Race Card."
Anonymous77: @Anonymous: Thank you for taking the bait and all but proving you are indeed samefagging. Congratulations on taking the lesson on quotation marks and punctuation to heart though you fell back on the random capitalization of words for emphasis.
And you should also quote Anon73 accurately. He didn't refer to some "random white woman," he specifically used the words "...and are fucking your women."
"Your women."
Same case as Anon6's comment my friend and if you need a refresher on that argument please see posts 17, 28, 31 and 41.
Anonymous78: @Anonymous: You say pitiful, but I was not the one who had to resort to ad hominem insults from the outset, attacking irrelevant post lengths, resorting to samefaggotry when neither of those worked and then vehemently denying it despite the circumstances.
Anonymous79: @Anonymous: Saying "The Race Card" is random capitalization now? Wow, I knew you were desperate dummy, but this is getting ridiculous. Someone tell this faggot about capital letters when you deal with titles, please. Now falsely declare victory again. I need a good laugh.
Anonymous80: @Anonymous: Saying that you are fucking "their women" automatically means "the women they're in a relationship with?" Not "the women in their race?" Which is a common statement.
I guess you're some sort of idiot who thinks that words/phrases only have one meaning.
Anonymous81: @Anonymous: No, direct your attention to your post #75. "...your average person knows is NOT the definition of..." That's the random capitalization for emphasis.
This is not hard to grasp Anon. If you cannot follow or keep track of your own posts minutes after making them then I'm not surprised you relied on the tactics you did in this thread.
Furthermore your penchant for using gratuitous quotations is part of that distinctive syntax I keep telling you about.
Anonymous82: @Anonymous: Christ on a stick Anon, we had this exact argument earlier in the thread. Follow my directions and read 17, 28, 31 and 41 if this is still confusing you.
Comments
just a thought
- Reply
- Reply
nice samefagging, dude
It's almost like the delicious tears meme is as much a hyperbolic knee-jerk reaction as the whining to begin with.
[img]https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/6/68/Black_men_have_tiny_dicks.png[img/]
- Reply
- Reply
Also it's funny how sjw here think that it's so impossible for people to dislike cuckoldry that they jump to the conclusion that all the negative comments are made by the same single person, talk about being delusional.
seriously, who are these kids that take animated porn so seriously?
- Reply
If there's anyone who likes it black and arabic in Sweden, that is Barbara Lerner Spectre.
The people using the cuck insult didn't just start hating interracial porn out of nowhere, they just started using the word cuck because they saw people into it falling on that trend enough that they made a stereotype out of it.
I mean, the people hating it certainly aren't the only retards in this equation. Just look at Anon6, HardSpanker and Violater. These kinds of people invite the herd of retards in by acting like dipshits themselves and then act blameless when we're suddenly swimming it the shit.
Both sides of this fucking argument are retarded and every single time someone brings it up that truth is proved again and again.
"Sorry", there's no zero-sum game, despite the pathetic meme of the (often Faux Concern Filled) "Both Sides Do It!" crowd.
Secondly; though I didn't originally make the argument and now that you've pointed it out maybe you should reread Anon6's comment.
"...the little white boiz jealous of the big black cock stealing their white girls!"
Now, did he mean that in a demographic sense or on a personal level? It reads kind of ambiguous between the two doesn't it? Whether or not what he said constitutes cuckolding depends on which sense he meant it.
If he meant it on a personal level then it's text book cuckolding. If he meant it on a demographic level then it'd be nonsense since white men don't own white women and black men ending up with the latter doesn't constitute cuckolding. So why would he word it like that?
It's almost as if he's conflating interracial (ex: black man with white woman) with "stealing someone's white girl" (cuckolding). Gee, it's like his rebuttal -- though almost certainly supposed to be a joke -- to the stupid idiots here proves my exact point that the haters are not the only ones who mix the two up.
And even if he were shitposting in an attempt to shine a mirror at the troglodytes and turn their bitching on themselves all he did was gave them another target that represents interracial=cuckolding to attack thereby making sure we get to deal with more cuck shitposting.
These people thrive off you screaming at them, forgive me for hoping the side they're not on would recognize that instead of feeding into the retarded cycle for immediate gratification.
And for the record, maybe you should find a new style of argument that doesn't rely on a bunch of insults disguised as an argument. (And yes, you can leave those strawmen and TL;DR mats at home too).
I read Anon6's comment. And common sense would dictate that he's talking about it on the demographic level because white guys (men in all groups really) take "ownership" of their group's women. As backwards as that may be. Since there's really no epidemic of white girls cheating on their white boyfriends with black dudes, and then dumping their white boyfriends for said black dudes.
It's the latter because "They're taking all our (white) women!" is the most common phrase from a group of men (when it comes to mixed relationships) in the US. Although in the modern era, to be fair. Even if the numbers of these pairings is incredibly low. To the degree that you have more insulting names for this specific pairing than any other race/gender combination.
And I'm not really insulting you by calling "water wet". Don't like it? Tough shit. Deal with on your own fucking time, while you work on not fitting right in with the label.
@Anonymous: True, how is that difficult to understand? It's true we are talking to tumblr's social justice "warriors", but still...
but at this point
you guys are a meme
using "meme" over and over again is intellectually lazy, you are not proving anything and you are making a fool out of yourself.
Ironically unable to think on your own you are becoming a meme yourself.
do you think you are 'trolling'?
do you think people are 'mad'?
then sorry to burst your bubble but no one here gives a fuck about you and your idiocy, don't you realize you are becoming the joke of this site?
why don't you hang yourself and end your miserable existence? I can assure you will NOT be missed by anyone.
if so you are delusional indeed, what you can't understand is that nobody here gives a shit about your PC bullshit, He's not the only one against your sjw crap as you like to believe, i read the previous posts and your stance like any other sjw scum is: it's ok if against some, but it's not okay if against some other ones, hence your "doesn't matter if the other side (your side) does it" classic SJW hypocrisy.
go back to tumblr, you'll find a lot of fellow SJW to talk with.
And they are a driving force. Don't kid yourself otherwise. It's blatantly obvious given comments sections here only get 30+ comments when idiots on both sides start acting like trolls. They don't keep coming back for the content at the top of the page, they come back for the comments.
This aversion to ridiculing the actions of both sides just reeks of partisan favoritism. You're not looking at this fight from the outside, you're very much a part of it and have deemed the one you sympathize with above scrutiny because you think the other side is worse. I'm not going to excuse the stupidity of someone meowing at their fingers because there's a fool barking at the moon twenty feet away. Doing so only validates one form of stupidity over the other.
You're not really proving Anon6's comment wasn't exactly what I said it was either. I mentioned that even if he meant it as a rebuttal to the irrational "our women," idea that every demographic has, then he's still playing into the idea of interracial relationships being cuckolding for the sake of an insult. That's been my point all along, that people who hate black men with white women relationships have always done so, they just weren't using the term cuck until they could see that as a legitimate target by people ridiculing them with a "threat of cuckolding" (like Anon6) or because a lot of fans of the concept erroneously conflate it with plain interracial to begin with.
If someone ridiculing them can fall into the same trap, then by definition it's not just the interracial detractors who do the mixing up.
Nice job at the end there too not even bothering to argue the contention of petty insults. But hey, at least you get to validate your caustic approach and lazy thinking with a nice superiority complex. Go ahead, let's here some more that aren't completely irrelevant and only serve to fill in the lack of a precise point.
@Anonymous: That's not entirely true. There are a lot of strawmen played straight that get torched around here, but you're right in pointing out that there's quite a lot of hiding behind presumptions to validate forcing a black and white narrative of side A versus side B where there can be no nuance or criticism which just ends up easily written off as being partisan despite where it comes from.
@Anonymous: There are a lot of people in this argument who don't fall within that stereotype and pegging them to it just kind of mimics the lazy thinking that anyone criticizing here must be a racist.
This kind of argument of extremes doesn't really help honestly. There are plenty of people here who aren't "SJWs," or vacationing "/pol/tards."
@Anonymous: Except that Anon6 never connected interracial relationships with "cuckolding". Because that's now how the definition of the word works. And in reality is just YOU projecting. By you conflating the two on YOUR OWN and baselessly accusing Anon6 of supporting cuckolding. Where your built your argument on a false point, with your continued misuse of the word. (Which was my point all along, with my initial mention of the actions of idiots.) And then trying to justify said projecting misnomer because of "what some phantom interracial fans said". You're using your own lazy thinking and the same lazy thinking of phantom people to justify your baseless and accusatory stance.
Which is complete and utter laughable nonsense. No matter how many times you go repeat yourself.
And "treating both sides as equal", when it comes to two opposing sides of "wrong", is the slow-poke logic that's popular with dumb and naive college-aged Libertarian idiots. Who approach practically every discussion like there is no greater wrong on either side, and that everything must be approached in an equal amount of condemnation. Lol, "puh-lease". Step out in the real friggin' world already, where you'll see that such thinking is a massive waste of time 9 times out of 10 and does more harm than good.
@Anonymous: i am able to think on my own
and i think you guys are fighting a lost battle
Why can't you fucking morons just shut up and fap.
"...the little white boiz jealous of the big black cock stealing their white girls!"
You said it yourself, he meant it on a demographic level mirroring the trend of males within a population seeing "ownership," over their female counterparts. That irrational thought pattern is where a lot of the "cuck," insult comes from and Anon6 played right into it.
White and Black men do not own White and Black women respectively so there would be no reason for him to word the insult like that unless he thought otherwise or was buying into the notion of those he's ridiculing to turn an insult.
Either way, he's conflated a black man being with a white woman as cuckolding aka "stealing," a woman away.
Don't try to play the redirect and projecting game here because you can't understand this.
All I'm seeing here are excuses for what you perceive to be the lesser evil and why you think it's bad someone might have something negative to say about you and yours while simultaneously attacking your opposition. In the real world what you're positing ends up being nothing more than a validation to terminate arguments of nuance for the sake of propping up the side who can proclaim their moral superiority the loudest. That kind of thinking is exactly how we end up with terrible leaders representing us while their sycophants chant, "At least they're not..." to lull people into thinking it might be fine to have one brand of terrible over another.
I never said the sides were equal either. I happen to hold those who aren't racist asshats to a higher standard, which is exactly why I'm criticizing those who would oppose them devolving to their mud-ridden level and in effect perpetuating the whole lousy affair while using their own double-standards to excuse their own flavor of shitslinging.
No... I think the naive one here is you. Elevating one side beyond reproach because the other is worse is definitive "good vs bad," naivete. It's not pragmatic and it's not realistic, it's the pathetic bending of a blunt and ugly truth -- that both sides are worth condemning to various degrees -- to better fit a hopeful and unrealistic dream of one being unequivocally right despite it acting terribly, just not as terribly as the other.
All of that trying to hide your butthurt using the classic "projecting" card like brainless morons such as yourself play because unable to develop an original thought.
the real world? you are demonstrating that you don't know shit about it, you are just another indoctrinated sheep who thinks the "real world" is the propaganda he sees on TV and social media, repeating it like a parrot thinking to be smart kid.
get over yourself, you are just making a fool out of yourself kid and while you are at it, put some ice on your ass you retarded faggot.
You somehow managed to sound even dumber than the person you're criticizing. Good job.
Or am I wrong?
Go link for us multiple sites that have the definition of cuckolding, and then show us how Anon6 is applying that definition on the demographic level. Go. Show us that you're NOT some overly wordy idiot, who doesn't know what he's talking about.
How many super secret special rules, that only you know about, are there? Link us the rule book you're reading, moron. Otherwise you're just making shit up like a typical one does.
because that seems to be what youre saying
Anon6's comment in full:
"funny how the white boiz always whines when its a blonde/white girl? the little white boiz jealous of the big black cock stealing their white girls! ┐(‘～`；)┌ "
Cuckolding on a technical level is simply someone's female SO (cuckquean is the opposite term for male SOs) sleeping with someone they're not in a relationship with. Broadly speaking on a fetish basis the men in these relationships know or encourage the behavior, sometimes to the point of losing their status as the woman's SO altogether.
I (Anon17) pointed out how there are two ways to interpret Anon6's comment. A personal level which can be considered synonymous with the actual definition of cuckolding above since the term only deals with things on a personal level anyway or on a demographic level with the idea of males of a certain group "owning," their female counterparts with any straying outside that dynamic constituting cuckolding.
Please note, I said the demographic level is fucking nonsense in that post. I said it again in Anon posts 28 and 31. I specifically mentioned that men of a certain demographic do not own the women within it so viewing the latter having interracial relationships as cuckolding is flat out wrong.
I brought these two distinct forms up for one reason. Anon6 is referring to "big black cock stealing their white girls!" If he meant it on a personal level then it's by definition referring to cuckolding and a conflation of interracial with it. If he meant it on a demographic level then he'd have no reason to word his insult the way he did, "stealing their white girls!" unless he did in fact view the demographic level as a legitimate application of the term and by doing so would still conflate it with interracial.
You yourself (or at least I'm assuming you; Anon18?) admitted that he meant it that way -- while also echoing my opinion that the demographic level is backwards nonsense -- because the caustic haters are using the demographic level as their criteria. So even in the event Anon6 was merely acting as a reflection of this sentiment back onto the group that espouses the idea he'd still be buying into it to use it as a reversed insult.
To bring this all back to my original point you need not look beyond my initial posts where I posited that a lot of this hate for interracial is not new, but the cuck term used as an insult is precisely because many people who are fans of both interracial porn and the cuckolding fetish wrongly conflate them and end up becoming targets of ridicule for the people who hated the interracial coupling all along and now liberally use the term as a pejorative.
In essence, my point has been that both fans and detractors conflate the two and I pointed to Anon6's comment as an example given he's either legitimately buying into the notion that cuckolding can exist at a demographic level, using that rhetoric to run against the stream of haters or referring to a personal level. In any case he's conflating the terms and obviously stands in opposition to the detractors.
You not being able to understand this is endemic of the idea that arguments of analytical complexity should be eschewed for the benefit of deciding one side, no matter how deficient in logic, be held higher by the greater faults of its opposition. The idea shuts down the ability to see both sides for what they are or accurately assess their arguments, instead replacing it with blatant partisan apologism for the lesser "villain," decided wholly on biased affiliations.
Especially the pretentious faggot above me, who keeps writing walls of text and talks as though he actually knows what a shitflinging anon thinks. There was an idiot like you in another thread on this very same discussion. You DOUBLY need to get over yourself.
well fucking job, you sure are showing us what a idiot you are, you are a lost cause, not that we expected better from a complete dumbfuck like yourself.
what a joke.
(Don't even bother to reply, i couldn't care less about your bitching, we already read too much of your shit)
As for the length. I can't help that the people I was arguing with didn't understand my point and required me breaking it down gradually into more and more comprehensive explanations. I'm more than happy to explain myself and have no qualms if that takes what you refer to as "OCD levels of novelist pseudo-intellectualism."
There was also a person like you in that very same thread pushing the same argument you are now that was in all practicality nothing more than a glorified "TL;DR" excuse to ignore the point argued and focus on ad hominems.
I'd hazard a guess the person who truly needs to get over themselves is not quite me (except for the verbosity), but perhaps yourself given you seem to think arguing in this place is somehow beneath you. I have no illusions about what this place is, but that's not going to stop me from forming a logical and coherent point or going at length to do so if a serious discussion develops. What you're advocating is just blanket anti-intellectualism and what's worse, you're injecting your own elitism into it.
There's no reason even porn sites need be devoid of thoughtful discussion.
You're one of those lofty perched idiots who gets mad that no one cares about a long winded rant on the science behind what's going on during a Monster Truck rally. And then cries that the crowd is promoting ignorance and doesn't like the fact that he's taken it upon himself to "educate them". So no, YOU are the only one injecting elitism.
As I said; I have no illusions as to what this place is. I accept that I'm arguing at length on a porn site and have no intention of educating anyone. You have every right and certainly the ability to ignore any of these "novella," comments. If you do not wish to have this kind of discussion here that's perfectly fine.
However it is incredibly rich seeing an accusation of arrogance directed at someone who can admit to faults (verbosity, verbosity, verbosity) and has no qualms being precise in their arguments despite the scenery from someone such as yourself who'd rather fall back on ad hominems galore while deeming this place unfit for a proper discussion.
You're the one painting everyone here as incapable or unwilling to follow a coherent argument simply based on what this site is. Your claims of elitism seem nothing more than projecting given you're taking issue with the length and style of my arguments because of where we are. It's as if you expect every comment here to be flippant, short and full of superfluous opinion and when that expectation is not met by someone explaining themselves carefully the very notion seems to upset you.
That is your arrogance anon. You expect everyone here to be a mouth-breathing fool incapable of putting together more than a few paragraphs to rebut a point and once someone does you can't see that action as anything more than someone being pretentious or insincere. The lady doth protest too much.
My posts may be long, but I make no attempt to hide what they are. I trust the people here to read, comprehend, dispute, hate, correct, misunderstand or just ignore them as they will.
I gave you an example of the very thing I spoke of in this very thread and explained my logic. You seemingly abandoned that argument once you tired of it (or simply tired of not understanding it as your misrepresentation implies) and decided to focus on the length of my posts as a substitute point despite how utterly petty and transparently irrelevant that is.
(Which is the action of someone who has indeed LOST.)
I don't know about anyone else, but you seem to be one of those faggots who simply likes to see his words up on a screen. Now I expect to see an entire speech from you where you call me the anon that you've been trying to debate.
holy shit i thought this was over for fucks sake!
if you can't notice that is made of rubber you are either blind or a complete idiot
rofl
Surprise motherfuckers!
For starters, you don't use proper grammar. All your punctuation marks end up outside your quotation marks when they're supposed to go inside them.
You also have a rather formulaic syntax and flow to your posts. That's not a bad thing as some personal standardization is good, but it does mark your person at the same time. Your ad hominem arguments are also all flavored in the same anti-prentious way, point-skirting way.
Any one of these by themselves and I'd concede that I'm wrong. All of them happening regularly in the same posts as those openly directed at me? Sorry anon, that's stretching credulity.
Just as an example; compare Anon posts 38, 42 and 49 (that claimed to be another person). They all randomly capitalize words for emphasis. They all misplace punctuation marks outside of the quotations. They all have the same verbal flow of one sentence (often laden with petty insults) to the next. They all end up focusing on an eventual ad hominem vaguely directed in the same manner. You can notice these trends in posts 50, 51, 53 and 54 as well as the earlier posts of the anon I was indeed arguing with.
I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong on this, but all these things lining up and happening regularly all in the same spots makes me think otherwise.
People don't like interracial, some people do.
Quit trying to bait each other into arguements on a fucking porn site, you morons.
It's not racism to not enjoy interracial, and anyone who tries to claim it is is an idiot.
They're all happening in the same posts regularly though. How many people do all those exact things in the same exact fashion repeatedly?
It's rather suspicious, especially when someone starts a post qualifying they're a different poster only to exhibit all the same quirks as the person they're trying to differentiate themselves from.
@leeroy:
This seems to be a bit conspiratorial/reaching, on your part. But at least you're not typing out useless "novels" anymore. (Uh-oh! I same "novel". I must be "the same" anon.)
Your lack of proper use of punctuation in conjunction with quotations is not unique. Your random capitalization of words for emphasis is not unique. Your syntax and manner of ad hominem usage while certainly very distinctive is also something I'm willing to say isn't exactly unique out of the sheer impossibility of being able to determine such.
All of these things together however certainly is unique. You're trying to tell me that a different anon will immediately announce they're a different person (already something suspect in an argument like this) and then proceed to speak the same way, make the same irrelevant ad hominem arguments, the same grammatical mistakes and the same quirk of capitalized emphasis?
Any one of these and you might have a point, but all of them together in repeated instances? Please anon, stop insulting everyone's intelligence. I'm not basing this conclusion on any one of these things, but on all of them conveniently happening in the same styled posts repeatedly.
Nor does it change the fact the syntax is still the same as are the grammatical mistakes.
You said yourself did you not that my "novels," are misplaced on this site. You've gone on endlessly about my "pretentious walls of words," and how people are not inclined to read them.
So why now are you contradicting yourself and that "TL;DR" argument by implying new anonymous users would chime in with posts clearly and intimately aware of the conversation at hand showing they'd read all the preceding comments while oh so conveniently using the same syntax, grammar, quirks, arguments and word usage as someone already part of said discussion?
Is that possible? Of course it is, but it's a game of probabilities Anon and your players seem rather slim. The chances it's a brand new anon who decided to read dozens and dozens of comments (something you argue against by the constant "novella," critique) to give themselves an acute familiarity of our contention while simultaneously and curiously exhibiting all of your idiosyncrasies and arguments are a lot smaller than the alternative scenario of you trying to manufacture an argumentum ad populum via samefaggotry.
Again, please stop insulting everyone's intelligence.
Tell me again how a random person is "that anon", because he doesn't do the only thing that you used to "identify" a previous anon. What makes someone not doing those things the same as an anon who changed his tactic? You've officially lost your limited mind and have shown that you're not even HALF the sleuth/are as smart as you think you are.
Can't wait yo see you hide behind the flimsy line of "Muh probability!" over figures that don't exist, again. Whatever anon said it was right, you're a paranoid nutjob.
And if you look just below your post you'll see another instance, not unlike Anon6's comment, that reinforces my point from the beginning of our argument.
And you should also quote Anon73 accurately. He didn't refer to some "random white woman," he specifically used the words "...and are fucking your women."
"Your women."
Same case as Anon6's comment my friend and if you need a refresher on that argument please see posts 17, 28, 31 and 41.
I guess you're some sort of idiot who thinks that words/phrases only have one meaning.
This is not hard to grasp Anon. If you cannot follow or keep track of your own posts minutes after making them then I'm not surprised you relied on the tactics you did in this thread.
Furthermore your penchant for using gratuitous quotations is part of that distinctive syntax I keep telling you about.
I pointed out quite clearly where I likened Anon73 to Anon6 and pointed to where the argument for that can be found.
FAGGOTS